… and on the lines of things recalled from Ye Olde Times, there was this bit of silliness in 2010 which I’d almost forgotten… it made me laugh to see it again.
thinker | dreamer | writer
thinker | dreamer | writer
… and on the lines of things recalled from Ye Olde Times, there was this bit of silliness in 2010 which I’d almost forgotten… it made me laugh to see it again.
sandie zand 
No parent should ever think their children ugly! (But the analogy with one’s children is bogus I think.)
And while it’s great to be able to look at your own creations with enough detachment to see where they can be bettered, there is a risk in it, too.
The critics’ voices are likely right about a lot of stuff, of course.
Even so, they may also be unable to see that some of the bits they think ugly are also the bits which are truly original and new – your own voice in fact – and are worth cultivating and developing.
You may end up blandifying and conventionalising your work if you pay them too much heed.
You thought you were right then, and think so now, although you’ve changed your views to fall in line with the cirtics’.
Playing devil’s advocate I would suggest that you should look at the ugly bits and make them even uglier to make your voice stronger and more unique.
Yes, in many respects I would agree – and I do like the notion of finding the ugly bits and making them more ugly. One reason I adore stereotypical characters (and cartooning them further) is because those who Dictate The Rules get pissed off with ’em.
But in this instance, I really do find some of the passages overwrought. Perhaps they could be even more so (and thus exaggerating in a Voice way)… but the whole book would then need to echo that technique… and I don’t want to re-work the whole book as there’s much about it I’m content with.
I think perhaps the Libran balance is found in – as you say – accepting some criticism… listening, at least… but never letting this interfere with the overall aim and writerly voice of a piece.
I once read a wonderful (unpublished) book – the author will remain anonymous – and it was so damned fabulous, pushing boundaries and having a clear, very clear, voice. The author listened to professionals, their criticisms, and changed the book to suit. I re-read that manuscript and the soul of the book had been lost in the changes. It was a perfect example of what you say: “blandifying and conventionalising”. And it was a sad thing to see. So, yes, in the main I agree with you – but I also believe that many authors (myself included) are often too precious about their work to at least *listen* and *consider* the views of those weary souls who’ve read a great deal of drafts.